Prove that for any $epsilon > 0, exists delta > 0,$ if $||P|| < delta $, then $|L(f,P) -...
$begingroup$
Let function f be integrable on [a,b] and $I = int_{a}^{b} f(x) dx.$ Then, for any $epsilon > 0, exists delta > 0,$ such that if P is any partition of [a,b] and $||P|| < delta $, then $|L(f,P) - I|<epsilon $ , and $|U(f,P) - I|<epsilon $
Could anyone give me a hint for this proof?
calculus real-analysis integration analysis riemann-sum
$endgroup$
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Let function f be integrable on [a,b] and $I = int_{a}^{b} f(x) dx.$ Then, for any $epsilon > 0, exists delta > 0,$ such that if P is any partition of [a,b] and $||P|| < delta $, then $|L(f,P) - I|<epsilon $ , and $|U(f,P) - I|<epsilon $
Could anyone give me a hint for this proof?
calculus real-analysis integration analysis riemann-sum
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Your notation is not standard so could specify your symbols?
$endgroup$
– Federico Fallucca
Nov 29 '18 at 11:15
$begingroup$
What is for you the definition of integral of a function?
$endgroup$
– Federico Fallucca
Nov 29 '18 at 11:16
1
$begingroup$
It is a classic theorem, but the proof is lengthy. Perhaps you should consult a textbook.
$endgroup$
– Paul Frost
Nov 29 '18 at 11:58
1
$begingroup$
This is an aspect of parallel (and equivalent) approaches to the Riemann integral -- convergence of sums as partitions are refined (Darboux) and convergence as partition norm tends to $0$. Most books either fail to mention the connection or if mentioned it is not explained clearly or left as an exercise. The link provided in a comment is somewhat difficult to wade through. My answer shows that there is one key step that is not immediately obvious, but other than that the proof is straightforward.
$endgroup$
– RRL
Dec 3 '18 at 0:23
1
$begingroup$
You may want to have a look at the following answer: math.stackexchange.com/a/2047959/72031
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Dec 3 '18 at 0:56
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Let function f be integrable on [a,b] and $I = int_{a}^{b} f(x) dx.$ Then, for any $epsilon > 0, exists delta > 0,$ such that if P is any partition of [a,b] and $||P|| < delta $, then $|L(f,P) - I|<epsilon $ , and $|U(f,P) - I|<epsilon $
Could anyone give me a hint for this proof?
calculus real-analysis integration analysis riemann-sum
$endgroup$
Let function f be integrable on [a,b] and $I = int_{a}^{b} f(x) dx.$ Then, for any $epsilon > 0, exists delta > 0,$ such that if P is any partition of [a,b] and $||P|| < delta $, then $|L(f,P) - I|<epsilon $ , and $|U(f,P) - I|<epsilon $
Could anyone give me a hint for this proof?
calculus real-analysis integration analysis riemann-sum
calculus real-analysis integration analysis riemann-sum
edited Nov 29 '18 at 11:31
hopefully
asked Nov 29 '18 at 10:19
hopefullyhopefully
169112
169112
$begingroup$
Your notation is not standard so could specify your symbols?
$endgroup$
– Federico Fallucca
Nov 29 '18 at 11:15
$begingroup$
What is for you the definition of integral of a function?
$endgroup$
– Federico Fallucca
Nov 29 '18 at 11:16
1
$begingroup$
It is a classic theorem, but the proof is lengthy. Perhaps you should consult a textbook.
$endgroup$
– Paul Frost
Nov 29 '18 at 11:58
1
$begingroup$
This is an aspect of parallel (and equivalent) approaches to the Riemann integral -- convergence of sums as partitions are refined (Darboux) and convergence as partition norm tends to $0$. Most books either fail to mention the connection or if mentioned it is not explained clearly or left as an exercise. The link provided in a comment is somewhat difficult to wade through. My answer shows that there is one key step that is not immediately obvious, but other than that the proof is straightforward.
$endgroup$
– RRL
Dec 3 '18 at 0:23
1
$begingroup$
You may want to have a look at the following answer: math.stackexchange.com/a/2047959/72031
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Dec 3 '18 at 0:56
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Your notation is not standard so could specify your symbols?
$endgroup$
– Federico Fallucca
Nov 29 '18 at 11:15
$begingroup$
What is for you the definition of integral of a function?
$endgroup$
– Federico Fallucca
Nov 29 '18 at 11:16
1
$begingroup$
It is a classic theorem, but the proof is lengthy. Perhaps you should consult a textbook.
$endgroup$
– Paul Frost
Nov 29 '18 at 11:58
1
$begingroup$
This is an aspect of parallel (and equivalent) approaches to the Riemann integral -- convergence of sums as partitions are refined (Darboux) and convergence as partition norm tends to $0$. Most books either fail to mention the connection or if mentioned it is not explained clearly or left as an exercise. The link provided in a comment is somewhat difficult to wade through. My answer shows that there is one key step that is not immediately obvious, but other than that the proof is straightforward.
$endgroup$
– RRL
Dec 3 '18 at 0:23
1
$begingroup$
You may want to have a look at the following answer: math.stackexchange.com/a/2047959/72031
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Dec 3 '18 at 0:56
$begingroup$
Your notation is not standard so could specify your symbols?
$endgroup$
– Federico Fallucca
Nov 29 '18 at 11:15
$begingroup$
Your notation is not standard so could specify your symbols?
$endgroup$
– Federico Fallucca
Nov 29 '18 at 11:15
$begingroup$
What is for you the definition of integral of a function?
$endgroup$
– Federico Fallucca
Nov 29 '18 at 11:16
$begingroup$
What is for you the definition of integral of a function?
$endgroup$
– Federico Fallucca
Nov 29 '18 at 11:16
1
1
$begingroup$
It is a classic theorem, but the proof is lengthy. Perhaps you should consult a textbook.
$endgroup$
– Paul Frost
Nov 29 '18 at 11:58
$begingroup$
It is a classic theorem, but the proof is lengthy. Perhaps you should consult a textbook.
$endgroup$
– Paul Frost
Nov 29 '18 at 11:58
1
1
$begingroup$
This is an aspect of parallel (and equivalent) approaches to the Riemann integral -- convergence of sums as partitions are refined (Darboux) and convergence as partition norm tends to $0$. Most books either fail to mention the connection or if mentioned it is not explained clearly or left as an exercise. The link provided in a comment is somewhat difficult to wade through. My answer shows that there is one key step that is not immediately obvious, but other than that the proof is straightforward.
$endgroup$
– RRL
Dec 3 '18 at 0:23
$begingroup$
This is an aspect of parallel (and equivalent) approaches to the Riemann integral -- convergence of sums as partitions are refined (Darboux) and convergence as partition norm tends to $0$. Most books either fail to mention the connection or if mentioned it is not explained clearly or left as an exercise. The link provided in a comment is somewhat difficult to wade through. My answer shows that there is one key step that is not immediately obvious, but other than that the proof is straightforward.
$endgroup$
– RRL
Dec 3 '18 at 0:23
1
1
$begingroup$
You may want to have a look at the following answer: math.stackexchange.com/a/2047959/72031
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Dec 3 '18 at 0:56
$begingroup$
You may want to have a look at the following answer: math.stackexchange.com/a/2047959/72031
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Dec 3 '18 at 0:56
|
show 6 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Start with the assumption that $f$ is Riemann-Darboux integrable and, hence, bounded.
For any $epsilon > 0$ there exists a partition $P_epsilon = (a=x_0,x_1, ldots, x_{m-1},x_m=b)$ such that the upper Darboux sum satisfies
$$I leqslant U(f,P_epsilon) < I + frac{epsilon}{2}$$
Since $f$ must be bounded, there exists $M > 0$ such that $-M leqslant f(x) leqslant M$ and $|f(x)- f(y)| leqslant 2M$ for all $x,y in [a,b]$.
Let $P = (a = y_0 , y_1, ldots , y_{r-1}, y_r = b)$ be any partition with $|P| < delta = dfrac{epsilon}{4mM},$ and take $Q = P cup P_epsilon$.
Since the partition $Q$ is a refinement of $P_epsilon$ we have $U(f,Q) leqslant U(f,P_epsilon)$. Furthermore, $Q$ has at most $m-1$ more partition points than $P$ since the $m+1$ points of $P_epsilon$ have been added and the endpoints $x_0 = y_0 =a$ and $x_m = y_r = b$ coincide.
The part of the proof that requires some insight is the observation that
$$tag{*}|U(f,P) - U(f,Q)| < 2M(m-1) delta = 2M(m-1) frac{epsilon}{4mM} < frac{epsilon}{2},$$
which implies
$$U(f,P) < U(f,Q) + frac{epsilon}{2} < U(f,P_epsilon) + frac{epsilon}{2}
< I + epsilon$$
Since $U(f,P) geqslant I$ it follows that $|U(f,P) - I| < epsilon$. The proof that $|L(f,P) - I| < epsilon$ is similar.
Explanation of inequality (*)
This follows because the difference between $U(f,P)$ and $U(f,Q)$ comes from the area of at most $m-1$ rectangles above the graph of $f$ with height bounded by $2M$ and width bounded by $delta$.
For example, consider the interval $[y_j, y_{j+1}]$ of $P$ and suppose that the single point $x_k$ from $P_epsilon$ has been added in forming $Q$ and we have $y_j < x_k < y_{j+1}$.
Let $M(alpha,beta) := sup_{x in [alpha,beta]},f(x)$
The absolute difference of upper sums has the contribution
$$|U(f,Q) - U(f,P)| = left| ,M(y_j,x_k) (x_k - y_j)+ M(x_k,y_{j+1}) (y_{j+1} - x_k) - M(y_j,y_{j+1}) (y_{j+1} - y_j), right| \ leqslant |M(y_j,x_k)- M(y_j,y_{j+1})| (x_k - y_j)+ |M(x_k,y_{j+1})- M(y_j,y_{j+1}) |(y_{j+1} - x_k) \ < |M(y_j,x_k)- M(y_j,y_{j+1})|delta + |M(x_k,y_{j+1})- M(y_j,y_{j+1})| delta $$
Of the two terms on the RHS one must vanish where suprema coincide and in the remaining term the difference of suprema is bounded by $2M$.
Thus, $|U(f,Q) - U(f,P)| < 2M delta$ and proceeding inductively as $m-1$ points are added we have $|U(f,Q) - U(f,P)| < 2M(m-1) delta$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3018441%2fprove-that-for-any-epsilon-0-exists-delta-0-if-p-delta-the%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Start with the assumption that $f$ is Riemann-Darboux integrable and, hence, bounded.
For any $epsilon > 0$ there exists a partition $P_epsilon = (a=x_0,x_1, ldots, x_{m-1},x_m=b)$ such that the upper Darboux sum satisfies
$$I leqslant U(f,P_epsilon) < I + frac{epsilon}{2}$$
Since $f$ must be bounded, there exists $M > 0$ such that $-M leqslant f(x) leqslant M$ and $|f(x)- f(y)| leqslant 2M$ for all $x,y in [a,b]$.
Let $P = (a = y_0 , y_1, ldots , y_{r-1}, y_r = b)$ be any partition with $|P| < delta = dfrac{epsilon}{4mM},$ and take $Q = P cup P_epsilon$.
Since the partition $Q$ is a refinement of $P_epsilon$ we have $U(f,Q) leqslant U(f,P_epsilon)$. Furthermore, $Q$ has at most $m-1$ more partition points than $P$ since the $m+1$ points of $P_epsilon$ have been added and the endpoints $x_0 = y_0 =a$ and $x_m = y_r = b$ coincide.
The part of the proof that requires some insight is the observation that
$$tag{*}|U(f,P) - U(f,Q)| < 2M(m-1) delta = 2M(m-1) frac{epsilon}{4mM} < frac{epsilon}{2},$$
which implies
$$U(f,P) < U(f,Q) + frac{epsilon}{2} < U(f,P_epsilon) + frac{epsilon}{2}
< I + epsilon$$
Since $U(f,P) geqslant I$ it follows that $|U(f,P) - I| < epsilon$. The proof that $|L(f,P) - I| < epsilon$ is similar.
Explanation of inequality (*)
This follows because the difference between $U(f,P)$ and $U(f,Q)$ comes from the area of at most $m-1$ rectangles above the graph of $f$ with height bounded by $2M$ and width bounded by $delta$.
For example, consider the interval $[y_j, y_{j+1}]$ of $P$ and suppose that the single point $x_k$ from $P_epsilon$ has been added in forming $Q$ and we have $y_j < x_k < y_{j+1}$.
Let $M(alpha,beta) := sup_{x in [alpha,beta]},f(x)$
The absolute difference of upper sums has the contribution
$$|U(f,Q) - U(f,P)| = left| ,M(y_j,x_k) (x_k - y_j)+ M(x_k,y_{j+1}) (y_{j+1} - x_k) - M(y_j,y_{j+1}) (y_{j+1} - y_j), right| \ leqslant |M(y_j,x_k)- M(y_j,y_{j+1})| (x_k - y_j)+ |M(x_k,y_{j+1})- M(y_j,y_{j+1}) |(y_{j+1} - x_k) \ < |M(y_j,x_k)- M(y_j,y_{j+1})|delta + |M(x_k,y_{j+1})- M(y_j,y_{j+1})| delta $$
Of the two terms on the RHS one must vanish where suprema coincide and in the remaining term the difference of suprema is bounded by $2M$.
Thus, $|U(f,Q) - U(f,P)| < 2M delta$ and proceeding inductively as $m-1$ points are added we have $|U(f,Q) - U(f,P)| < 2M(m-1) delta$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Start with the assumption that $f$ is Riemann-Darboux integrable and, hence, bounded.
For any $epsilon > 0$ there exists a partition $P_epsilon = (a=x_0,x_1, ldots, x_{m-1},x_m=b)$ such that the upper Darboux sum satisfies
$$I leqslant U(f,P_epsilon) < I + frac{epsilon}{2}$$
Since $f$ must be bounded, there exists $M > 0$ such that $-M leqslant f(x) leqslant M$ and $|f(x)- f(y)| leqslant 2M$ for all $x,y in [a,b]$.
Let $P = (a = y_0 , y_1, ldots , y_{r-1}, y_r = b)$ be any partition with $|P| < delta = dfrac{epsilon}{4mM},$ and take $Q = P cup P_epsilon$.
Since the partition $Q$ is a refinement of $P_epsilon$ we have $U(f,Q) leqslant U(f,P_epsilon)$. Furthermore, $Q$ has at most $m-1$ more partition points than $P$ since the $m+1$ points of $P_epsilon$ have been added and the endpoints $x_0 = y_0 =a$ and $x_m = y_r = b$ coincide.
The part of the proof that requires some insight is the observation that
$$tag{*}|U(f,P) - U(f,Q)| < 2M(m-1) delta = 2M(m-1) frac{epsilon}{4mM} < frac{epsilon}{2},$$
which implies
$$U(f,P) < U(f,Q) + frac{epsilon}{2} < U(f,P_epsilon) + frac{epsilon}{2}
< I + epsilon$$
Since $U(f,P) geqslant I$ it follows that $|U(f,P) - I| < epsilon$. The proof that $|L(f,P) - I| < epsilon$ is similar.
Explanation of inequality (*)
This follows because the difference between $U(f,P)$ and $U(f,Q)$ comes from the area of at most $m-1$ rectangles above the graph of $f$ with height bounded by $2M$ and width bounded by $delta$.
For example, consider the interval $[y_j, y_{j+1}]$ of $P$ and suppose that the single point $x_k$ from $P_epsilon$ has been added in forming $Q$ and we have $y_j < x_k < y_{j+1}$.
Let $M(alpha,beta) := sup_{x in [alpha,beta]},f(x)$
The absolute difference of upper sums has the contribution
$$|U(f,Q) - U(f,P)| = left| ,M(y_j,x_k) (x_k - y_j)+ M(x_k,y_{j+1}) (y_{j+1} - x_k) - M(y_j,y_{j+1}) (y_{j+1} - y_j), right| \ leqslant |M(y_j,x_k)- M(y_j,y_{j+1})| (x_k - y_j)+ |M(x_k,y_{j+1})- M(y_j,y_{j+1}) |(y_{j+1} - x_k) \ < |M(y_j,x_k)- M(y_j,y_{j+1})|delta + |M(x_k,y_{j+1})- M(y_j,y_{j+1})| delta $$
Of the two terms on the RHS one must vanish where suprema coincide and in the remaining term the difference of suprema is bounded by $2M$.
Thus, $|U(f,Q) - U(f,P)| < 2M delta$ and proceeding inductively as $m-1$ points are added we have $|U(f,Q) - U(f,P)| < 2M(m-1) delta$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Start with the assumption that $f$ is Riemann-Darboux integrable and, hence, bounded.
For any $epsilon > 0$ there exists a partition $P_epsilon = (a=x_0,x_1, ldots, x_{m-1},x_m=b)$ such that the upper Darboux sum satisfies
$$I leqslant U(f,P_epsilon) < I + frac{epsilon}{2}$$
Since $f$ must be bounded, there exists $M > 0$ such that $-M leqslant f(x) leqslant M$ and $|f(x)- f(y)| leqslant 2M$ for all $x,y in [a,b]$.
Let $P = (a = y_0 , y_1, ldots , y_{r-1}, y_r = b)$ be any partition with $|P| < delta = dfrac{epsilon}{4mM},$ and take $Q = P cup P_epsilon$.
Since the partition $Q$ is a refinement of $P_epsilon$ we have $U(f,Q) leqslant U(f,P_epsilon)$. Furthermore, $Q$ has at most $m-1$ more partition points than $P$ since the $m+1$ points of $P_epsilon$ have been added and the endpoints $x_0 = y_0 =a$ and $x_m = y_r = b$ coincide.
The part of the proof that requires some insight is the observation that
$$tag{*}|U(f,P) - U(f,Q)| < 2M(m-1) delta = 2M(m-1) frac{epsilon}{4mM} < frac{epsilon}{2},$$
which implies
$$U(f,P) < U(f,Q) + frac{epsilon}{2} < U(f,P_epsilon) + frac{epsilon}{2}
< I + epsilon$$
Since $U(f,P) geqslant I$ it follows that $|U(f,P) - I| < epsilon$. The proof that $|L(f,P) - I| < epsilon$ is similar.
Explanation of inequality (*)
This follows because the difference between $U(f,P)$ and $U(f,Q)$ comes from the area of at most $m-1$ rectangles above the graph of $f$ with height bounded by $2M$ and width bounded by $delta$.
For example, consider the interval $[y_j, y_{j+1}]$ of $P$ and suppose that the single point $x_k$ from $P_epsilon$ has been added in forming $Q$ and we have $y_j < x_k < y_{j+1}$.
Let $M(alpha,beta) := sup_{x in [alpha,beta]},f(x)$
The absolute difference of upper sums has the contribution
$$|U(f,Q) - U(f,P)| = left| ,M(y_j,x_k) (x_k - y_j)+ M(x_k,y_{j+1}) (y_{j+1} - x_k) - M(y_j,y_{j+1}) (y_{j+1} - y_j), right| \ leqslant |M(y_j,x_k)- M(y_j,y_{j+1})| (x_k - y_j)+ |M(x_k,y_{j+1})- M(y_j,y_{j+1}) |(y_{j+1} - x_k) \ < |M(y_j,x_k)- M(y_j,y_{j+1})|delta + |M(x_k,y_{j+1})- M(y_j,y_{j+1})| delta $$
Of the two terms on the RHS one must vanish where suprema coincide and in the remaining term the difference of suprema is bounded by $2M$.
Thus, $|U(f,Q) - U(f,P)| < 2M delta$ and proceeding inductively as $m-1$ points are added we have $|U(f,Q) - U(f,P)| < 2M(m-1) delta$.
$endgroup$
Start with the assumption that $f$ is Riemann-Darboux integrable and, hence, bounded.
For any $epsilon > 0$ there exists a partition $P_epsilon = (a=x_0,x_1, ldots, x_{m-1},x_m=b)$ such that the upper Darboux sum satisfies
$$I leqslant U(f,P_epsilon) < I + frac{epsilon}{2}$$
Since $f$ must be bounded, there exists $M > 0$ such that $-M leqslant f(x) leqslant M$ and $|f(x)- f(y)| leqslant 2M$ for all $x,y in [a,b]$.
Let $P = (a = y_0 , y_1, ldots , y_{r-1}, y_r = b)$ be any partition with $|P| < delta = dfrac{epsilon}{4mM},$ and take $Q = P cup P_epsilon$.
Since the partition $Q$ is a refinement of $P_epsilon$ we have $U(f,Q) leqslant U(f,P_epsilon)$. Furthermore, $Q$ has at most $m-1$ more partition points than $P$ since the $m+1$ points of $P_epsilon$ have been added and the endpoints $x_0 = y_0 =a$ and $x_m = y_r = b$ coincide.
The part of the proof that requires some insight is the observation that
$$tag{*}|U(f,P) - U(f,Q)| < 2M(m-1) delta = 2M(m-1) frac{epsilon}{4mM} < frac{epsilon}{2},$$
which implies
$$U(f,P) < U(f,Q) + frac{epsilon}{2} < U(f,P_epsilon) + frac{epsilon}{2}
< I + epsilon$$
Since $U(f,P) geqslant I$ it follows that $|U(f,P) - I| < epsilon$. The proof that $|L(f,P) - I| < epsilon$ is similar.
Explanation of inequality (*)
This follows because the difference between $U(f,P)$ and $U(f,Q)$ comes from the area of at most $m-1$ rectangles above the graph of $f$ with height bounded by $2M$ and width bounded by $delta$.
For example, consider the interval $[y_j, y_{j+1}]$ of $P$ and suppose that the single point $x_k$ from $P_epsilon$ has been added in forming $Q$ and we have $y_j < x_k < y_{j+1}$.
Let $M(alpha,beta) := sup_{x in [alpha,beta]},f(x)$
The absolute difference of upper sums has the contribution
$$|U(f,Q) - U(f,P)| = left| ,M(y_j,x_k) (x_k - y_j)+ M(x_k,y_{j+1}) (y_{j+1} - x_k) - M(y_j,y_{j+1}) (y_{j+1} - y_j), right| \ leqslant |M(y_j,x_k)- M(y_j,y_{j+1})| (x_k - y_j)+ |M(x_k,y_{j+1})- M(y_j,y_{j+1}) |(y_{j+1} - x_k) \ < |M(y_j,x_k)- M(y_j,y_{j+1})|delta + |M(x_k,y_{j+1})- M(y_j,y_{j+1})| delta $$
Of the two terms on the RHS one must vanish where suprema coincide and in the remaining term the difference of suprema is bounded by $2M$.
Thus, $|U(f,Q) - U(f,P)| < 2M delta$ and proceeding inductively as $m-1$ points are added we have $|U(f,Q) - U(f,P)| < 2M(m-1) delta$.
edited Dec 3 '18 at 0:28
answered Dec 2 '18 at 22:08
RRLRRL
49.5k42573
49.5k42573
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3018441%2fprove-that-for-any-epsilon-0-exists-delta-0-if-p-delta-the%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Your notation is not standard so could specify your symbols?
$endgroup$
– Federico Fallucca
Nov 29 '18 at 11:15
$begingroup$
What is for you the definition of integral of a function?
$endgroup$
– Federico Fallucca
Nov 29 '18 at 11:16
1
$begingroup$
It is a classic theorem, but the proof is lengthy. Perhaps you should consult a textbook.
$endgroup$
– Paul Frost
Nov 29 '18 at 11:58
1
$begingroup$
This is an aspect of parallel (and equivalent) approaches to the Riemann integral -- convergence of sums as partitions are refined (Darboux) and convergence as partition norm tends to $0$. Most books either fail to mention the connection or if mentioned it is not explained clearly or left as an exercise. The link provided in a comment is somewhat difficult to wade through. My answer shows that there is one key step that is not immediately obvious, but other than that the proof is straightforward.
$endgroup$
– RRL
Dec 3 '18 at 0:23
1
$begingroup$
You may want to have a look at the following answer: math.stackexchange.com/a/2047959/72031
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Dec 3 '18 at 0:56